Galveston & W. Ry. Co. v. City of Galveston
| Decision Date | 25 March 1897 |
| Citation | 39 S.W. 920 |
| Parties | GALVESTON & W. RY. CO. v. CITY OF GALVESTON. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
We have carefully re-examined the ground upon which the opinion in this case rests, and have considered the additional authorities presented by the city of Galveston on this motion, but find no reason for changing our opinion as to the proper disposition of the case. Our opinion in this case rests upon the ground that the state granted to the railroad company the right to occupy the streets of the city upon the condition precedent that the city should consent thereto, and that, when the city gave that consent, the right to occupy the streets vested in the railroad company, and its occupancy of such streets was by authority of the state. The city had no authority, in granting its consent, to attach a condition subsequent, which, in case of failure to comply, would defeat the right granted by the state which vested when the consent of the city was given. It seems to be insisted in support of this motion that, if the condition attached by the city to its consent be void, the grant of consent is likewise void. This does not necessarily follow. A grant of land upon a condition subsequent which is void, or even illegal, does not defeat the grant itself, but the illegal or void condition will have no effect upon the rights of the parties. So, in this case, the validity of the condition subsequent could not affect the validity of the grant of consent on the part of the city. We are asked to remand the case, in order that the petition may be amended for the purpose of proceeding against the railroad company as a trespasser upon the streets. If the opinion heretofore rendered is grounded upon safe and sound propositions of law, then it is impossible that the railroad company could be a trespasser upon the streets of the city. If it were true that the facts in this case made the railroad company a trespasser, then we ought not to reverse the judgment of the district court, for, whether it proceeded upon a right ground or not, if the judgment were correct it should be affirmed. We examined the record in this case before entering judgment to ascertain if there was any possible ground upon which a proceeding might be maintained in case the cause was remanded to the district court, and we were able to find no ground for such a proceeding. It would be useless to remand this cause to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State ex rel. Jordan v. Mayor and Commissioners of City of Greenwood
-
State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. City of Lebanon v. Missouri Standard Telephone Co.
... ... power to attach to its consent a condition not authorized by ... the State which would terminate or destroy the State's ... grant. Galveston & Western Ry. Co. v. Galveston, 39 ... S.W. 96, 90 Tex. 398, 39 S.W. 920, 91 Tex. 17; Appeal of City ... of Pittsburgh, 115 Pa. St. 4, 7 A. 778; ... ...
- City of Greenwood v. Humphreys
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Telephone Co.
...consent a condition not authorized by the State which would terminate or destroy the State's grant. Galveston & Western Ry. Co. v. Galveston, 39 S.W. 96, 90 Tex. 398, 39 S.W. 920, 91 Tex. 17; Appeal of City of Pittsburgh, 115 Pa. St. 4, 7 Atl. 778; State v. Mayor, etc., City of Jersey City,......